DIY_EFI Digest Saturday, 19 December 1998 Volume 03 : Number 604 In this issue: Re: WRC, was Flow rates for nozzles Re: Flow rates for nozzles Re: water injection RE: Flow rates for nozzles RE: water injection gm EFI distributor & making an adapter plate for tbi Re: WRC, was Flow rates for nozzles Re: gm EFI distributor & making an adapter plate for tbi RE: water injection and then some (long!) Re:making an adapter plate for tbi Re: WRC, was Flow rates for nozzles See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 19:48:26 -0700 Subject: Re: WRC, was Flow rates for nozzles (mostly Finns, for some >>reason) are the best in the world for sheer car control, and >>every last one of them is utterly barking mad. >> I would agree with this generalization, except that they say that Curtis Turner was that way too, and his ancestors didn't spend decades standing off the Commies, then the Nazis, and then the Commies again in one big, very cold snowy forest!!! (Mebbe corn squeezinz have the same effect on the noggin, or mebbe you have finally explained how the Finns manage to stand the cold!!) And no less than Dan Gurney has said that Pops Turner was absolutely by far the best he ever saw at car control--and I think we can all agree that Dan saw more than a few pretty good ones at work!!! Regards, Greg ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 21:37:44 -0500 Subject: Re: Flow rates for nozzles - -----Original Message----- From: Barry E. King To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Friday, December 18, 1998 9:24 PM Subject: RE: Flow rates for nozzles >> -----Chris C.'s Original Message----- > >> At 06:49 PM 12/17/98 -0700, Barry E. King wrote: >> >> While I agree with Greg's comments about an *optimal* setup, I think the >> simple system can give positive results, especially on a boosted motor. >> Might I suggest that you *don't* want fine atomization, if you're going >> to inject the water far before the intake valve? You want medium >> atomization, coarse enough that most of the water gets into the cylinder >> as liquid, but fine enough that it all evaporates inside. (Although at >> 25 psi boost, I don't think evaporating it all will be a problem!) >> >> Water flow at 50% of the fuel flow rate (mass/mass) is the number I >> keep hearing, not to say that other numbers can't work. 50% is from Sir Harry Ricardo's Book as a max number, and what we use in a max effort pulling tractor running 60 PSI of booost. If non intercooled, and your looking to help cool the intake air charge, then I'd go with the finer the mist the better. > >This is what I am not sure of. Seems to me the kits I have seen are much >much lower than 50%. I am wondering what range should be considered usable. >I read one study that worked with 5-15% based on mass. Also the nozzles >that come with a number of the kits I have seen would be limited to more in >the 10-15% range, but I dunno. This is something I need to determine. I'd >prefer to not use trial and error to get into the ballpark. Do you recall >where you got the 50% number? > >> Water turning to vapor too soon (outside the cylinder) and displacing >> charge air is a real concern, but the problem is perhaps less bad than >> with the fuel itself. Mainly due to the much higher heat capacity and >> latent heat of vaporization, but also due to the fact that most water >> injection systems only come online at high mass flow rates. Finally >> the water flow rate is not critical, you can increase it some which >> will result in less of it vaporizing (to some extent). > >Since the manifold will be at relatively high boost anyway I am hoping this >isn't too big of a concern but it is definitely something I need to watch. > >> The quick hack, which it sounds like you already have, is to just >> monitor one of the existing injector wires, and use that signal >> (buffered, of course) to pulse your water injectors. Choose your >> pressures and nozzle sizes, and you're done, as far as the control >> electronics go. Soooo easy. :) Fuel consumption from max torque to max HP is increased by only a couple percent per K of rpm, so it don't have to be very precise, > >I plan to pulse the water injector at some proportional rate and have it >adjustable based on MAP. Save a buttload of coding and even some hardware. > > >> My questions are 2: >> >> Will an ordinary (gasoline) injector live happily squirting water? > >Sounds like maybe a bit of machinists oil will help here. We'll see :) No >loss if I toast these injectors. Besides which I have 6 of them. ;) > >> Will an ordinary (gasoline) booster type fuel pump live happily >> pumping water? > >I too had this question and I think maybe the answer is "not likely" >dependant upon the purity of the water. I now plan to use a pump designed >for water. They still won't be that cheap I suspect at the pressures I >think are required. > >> I'll probably end up with a different solution, a duty-cycle modulated >> pump and nitrous kit fittings, but I'd like to hear how workable a >> system using standard parts would be. > >I plan to cycle the pump also to allow for adjustable pressure. > >I am thinking an el cheapo PIC 16C84 will do the trick since there is not >much work to be done and a very small amount of code to write. I will need >ADC for the MAP but I could use a chip for that if I get lazy. > >Next on the gadget list is to come up with a good algorithm for an >intelligent self-learning boost controller coupled with an intelligent >blow-off valve. Then I could tie the water injection controller into the >boost controller to limit boost when the water reservoir is empty. Too many >ideas. > > >Regards, > >Barry > ------------------------------ From: ECMnut@xxx.com Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 22:59:23 EST Subject: Re: water injection In a message dated 12/18/98 5:41:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, bearbvd@xxx.net writes: > >one ever notice that after a car is over hauled that it gets faster and > >faster, that is because the coke insulates the chamber so instead of the > >heat giong into the water jacket it does some useful work. In addition does Actually, "ring-seat" comes to mind before coking, when a new engine picks up a little HP. This can be supported with a leakdown tester... Mike V ------------------------------ From: "Barry E. King" Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 21:08:01 -0700 Subject: RE: Flow rates for nozzles > -----Bruce's Original Message----- > 50% is from Sir Harry Ricardo's Book as a max number, and what > we use in a max effort pulling tractor running 60 PSI of booost. > > If non intercooled, and your looking to help cool the intake air charge, > then I'd go with the finer the mist the better. Okay. I am intercooled using factory air-air exchangers so they are "okay" but will become soaked withing 20-30 mins of hard use like on a road course. Maximum peak boost will be between 21-25 psi with 21+ psi sustained. > Fuel consumption from max torque to max HP is increased by only > a couple percent per K of rpm, so it don't have to be very precise, Is an adjustment range of 5-15% (based on mass) too conservative? What range would you consider appropriate for this type of setup? My thinking is to squirt the minimum necessary to reduce detonation but allow the ability to squirt as much as is reasonable adjustable based on MAP. Fr'instance, 18 psi may only require say 5% whereas 21 psi may require 10%. I just pulled those numbers out of the air for purposes of example of course. Thanks, Barry ------------------------------ From: "Barry E. King" Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 21:39:47 -0700 Subject: RE: water injection I just took apart an engine with 60K miles on it that had zilch for coking - everything was squeaky clean if you ignored the bits of piston and ring stuck in the head and valves =) This is a t/c V6 which was making in excess of 550 HP. The cross hatch was still on the cylinder walls. I attribute this to regular oil and filter changes with synthetic oil, in this case Mobil 1. The turbo feed and return lines literally looked brand new inside. No signs of coking whatsoever. I don't buy the coking deal either. Eventually it will bring an engine down power-wise. Ring seating is more likely the reason for increased output. Regards, Barry > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-diy_efi@xxx.edu > [mailto:owner-diy_efi@xxx.edu]On Behalf Of > ECMnut@xxx.com > Sent: Friday, December 18, 1998 8:59 PM > To: diy_efi@xxx.edu > Subject: Re: water injection > > > In a message dated 12/18/98 5:41:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, > bearbvd@xxx.net > writes: > > > >one ever notice that after a car is over hauled that it gets faster and > > >faster, that is because the coke insulates the chamber so > instead of the > > >heat giong into the water jacket it does some useful work. In addition > does > > Actually, "ring-seat" comes to mind before coking, when a new engine > picks up a little HP. This can be supported with a leakdown tester... > Mike V > ------------------------------ From: "Stowe, Ted-SEA" Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 21:42:12 -0800 Subject: gm EFI distributor & making an adapter plate for tbi I just got a used distributor from a 85 gm 1.8L engine, it's an EFI distributor. I want to trigger the related gm ECU. oddly it almost looks like if it had a shaft on it, (it's a squat little thing), it would almost work in my mg, the key on the end is the same as my mgb distributor. Does anyone know of a circa '85ish gm EFI distributor that has a classical shaft ? or a creative machine shop that could make an adapter ring to have a mgb distributor shaft body drive this gm distributor ? also I need to find a machine shop to build an adapter plate for me for a gm throttle body to a two barrel Weber manifold. (it's not that bad). thanks, Ted. ------------------------------ From: Aaron Willis Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 22:51:28 -0800 Subject: Re: WRC, was Flow rates for nozzles James Montebello wrote: > I'm stunned by the general lack of knowledge on this list about > motorsports outside the US. :-) (Ozzies excluded, of course ;-). > > WRC is "World Rally Championship", a series that's run just > about everywhere except the US. Races are run over several > days in a series of point-to-point timed runs over dirt and > gravel roads; sometimes muddy, sometimes snow-covered. The > cars are typically Japanese and European "specials" built by > the factory on production FWD & 4WD hatchback chassis. Once > upon a time (a few years ago), in the days of Group B, there > were 4WD cars with engines in strange places (lots of > mid-engined cars that looked like plain FWD hatchbacks) running turbos, > superchargers, or both (Lancia Delta). 500hp was a > typical power figure. Now the top cars probably run about half > that. Top speeds are low, so the engines are tuned for gobs of > torque. The drivers in this series (mostly Finns, for some > reason) are the best in the world for sheer car control, and > every last one of them is utterly barking mad. > > > > >Spraying the intercooler is a great idea IMO. Some WRC cars > > come with I/C > > >sprayers right from the factory, or used to. > WRC is absolutely THE MOST entertaining motorsport available (barely available) on TV! I also wish it were a factor in the U.S., but...at any rate, it is simply fantastic driving. I would like to see more room in the rules for things like Group B cars (Metro 6R4 fan, always rooting for the underdog) in the future as I think it would add some much-needed color to a fairly homogenous group of racing cars. More to the point: Subaru use an IC water spray on their Impreza Turbo models, including the 350bhp (er, I meant 280 brake, wink, nudge) 22B homologation special. 350bhp from a 2.2 liter engine impresses the heck out of locals like me, but if they are using it, either it works very well or looks cool enough to impress buyers. A bit of trivia is that Subaru mount their IC under a hood scoop instead of in the front bumper, and perhaps the water spray is needed to counter the lack of airflow fast the core. Some ideas I have kicked around with others include a simple winshield washer pump on a hobbs switch, spraying through standard windshield washer nozzles across the IC core - many domestic cars have wide spray patterns and could cover a good bit of area each - or the previously mentioned boost-pressurized container. Nozzles from a garden (Hudson) sprayer also produce a fine mist under little pressure. Food for thought. Aaron Willis Redding, Ca USA ------------------------------ From: Aaron Willis Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 23:32:14 -0800 Subject: Re: gm EFI distributor & making an adapter plate for tbi Stowe, Ted-SEA wrote: > I just got a used distributor from a 85 gm 1.8L engine, it's an EFI > distributor. > > I want to trigger the related gm ECU. > > oddly it almost looks like if it had a shaft on it, (it's a squat little > thing), it would almost work in my mg, the key on the end is the same as my > mgb distributor. Does anyone know of a circa '85ish gm EFI distributor that > has a classical shaft ? or a creative machine shop that could make an > adapter ring to have a mgb distributor shaft body drive this gm distributor > ? > > also I need to find a machine shop to build an adapter plate for me for a gm > throttle body to a two barrel Weber manifold. (it's not that bad). > > thanks, Ted. Ted, If you are interested, TWM is offering SU-style throttle bodies with inectors to mount on your original manifold....sure to give better performance than a downdraft throttle body setup, but not cheap. Why not keep the SUs? My '72 ran like the devil with them. If you want to try another option, you can also do a weber DCOE pattern throttle body with injectors on a sidedraft manifold. Big bucks again. TWM is at twminduction.com , e-mail is twmindsb@xxx.com , phone (805) 967-9478. As for your adapter, sounds like a local job, or DIY with some stock from your local metal shop. Good luck with your 'B - I'd like to hear more about it. Aaron Willis ------------------------------ From: Chris Conlon Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 03:57:59 -0500 Subject: RE: water injection and then some (long!) Hi everyone, The following is all sliced together from various posts. I'm mainly replying to Barry, but have quoted many other people too in here. It's long and long winded... consider yourselves warned. :) > > Water flow at 50% of the fuel flow rate (mass/mass) is the number I > > keep hearing, not to say that other numbers can't work. > > This is what I am not sure of. Seems to me the kits I have seen are much > much lower than 50%. I am wondering what range should be considered usable. > I read one study that worked with 5-15% based on mass. Also the nozzles > that come with a number of the kits I have seen would be limited to more in > the 10-15% range, but I dunno. This is something I need to determine. I'd > prefer to not use trial and error to get into the ballpark. Do you recall > where you got the 50% number? Ok, I have to apologize for using lazy science in this one. Basically I have just seen a bunch of people running 25%-50% water:fuel on various engines, and similar numbers in papers that people have quoted (but which I have not read). I fully believe Bruce's value of 50% max, and apologize for being imprecise and unreferenced. ;) Yes a bunch of commercial kits seem to run way less than that. Another imprecise, unreferenced impression is that the quantity of water is not very critical, and can vary over a wide-ish range. I plan to use trial and error and EGT to get into the ballpark. Sorry, I know this is kinda vague. > I am thinking an el cheapo PIC 16C84 will do the trick since there is not > much work to be done and a very small amount of code to write. I will need > ADC for the MAP but I could use a chip for that if I get lazy. > > Next on the gadget list is to come up with a good algorithm for an > intelligent self-learning boost controller coupled with an intelligent > blow-off valve. Then I could tie the water injection controller into the At least some of the PICs have 8 bit A/D, IIRC. I was going to use one before I went 68hc11. As for the boost control: Have a small dedicated air pump and a solenoid valve to actuate the wastegate. Keep the wastegate FULLY CLOSED at ALL TIMES except when the turbo nears overspeed. (Yes you need a turbine RPM measuring setup.) For boost control, get a fly-by-wire throttle, put it *before* the turbo, and have the throttle follow the driver's foot except when boost is too high. (Thus putting boost control where it should be IMHO, but without burdening the driver.) > > If non intercooled, and your looking to help cool the intake air charge, > > then I'd go with the finer the mist the better. > > Okay. I am intercooled using factory air-air exchangers so they are "okay" > but will become soaked withing 20-30 mins of hard use like on a road course. > Maximum peak boost will be between 21-25 psi with 21+ psi sustained. If I might suggest, stop for a moment and ask why exactly you're using water injection? It sounds like the answer is "to run higher boost without detonation". Cooling the intake charge is great, but not at the expense of *displacing* large amounts of that intake charge with inert steam. Ideally you want the water to enter the cylinder just under the boiling point, but still as liquid. This is because the main power increase due to water injection (assuming constant boost) is not due to cooler charge but due to the large increase in cylinder pressure as a small volume of water flashes into a large volume of steam. Also the anti-detonation effect is largely due to the heat of vaporization. (Not entirely - in humid air the water is already fully vaporized, but even though there is no heat of vaporization to overcome, there is still some slight anti-detonant effect.) Now you may notice that here I took my supposed answer to why *you* want to run water injection, and sort of ignored it anyway. This is because it can give power increases even on NA engines, by making use of more of the heat of combustion, while still having the anti-detonation effect. Water injection on a boosted motor is IMHO a great thing. It lets you run more boost (if you want), but even if you don't it still lets you extract more power from the motor. Essentially it's recovering heat energy that would have gone into high EGTs, and turning it into hot steam which does extra work pushing on your pistons. *And* while displacing only a small % of the intake charge, as long as the water stays as liquid. This is why Greg is so insistent that the water be injected near the valve, and timed with the valve opening. Water evaporating outside the cylinder = big lose. Think of it as accidental EGR. I can't manage to build that kind of setup just yet; my approach is ceramic coatings on the intake ports and valves. Hopefully this will at least help keep more of the fuel and water in the liquid phase til they pass the intake valve. > If the droplets are small enough however, won't this effectively be the same > deal? Clearly we don't want puddling, and we need "vapor" (small airborn > droplets) that can take heat from the air charge to allow more fuel to be > dumped in (but not so much that the water displaces required fuel). In case I was unclear above, IMHO a slight err on the side of larger droplets and too many droplets will probably net you more power than too fine a mist or too little water (which will more easily flash to vapor). Generally you'll have enough heat of combustion to vaporize everything and then some. One of ERL's suggestions, which I like, is monitoring EGTs. > >A last thought on evaporation. The evaporation rate of water is very low > >below its boiling point 100c stp. > > Suggest reading a steam table. It all depends on temperature and PRESSURE. Water and/or methanol will produce significant vapor pressure well below boiling. Temperature is a measurement of *average* molecular energy, the peak of a bell curve. This is why a swamp cooler can cool air below ambient, why wind chill happens, and so forth. > Simply atomizing water will not cause it to change from a liquid to a > vapor - it takes 100c STP to accomplish that. Nope. And atomizing it will greatly speed the process. Finely divided materials dissolve and react more quickly. Consider how gasoline mist burns compared to a pool of liquid gasoline. ... Now if water/methanol formed a more stable azeotrope, in some ratio, that might give a higher heat of vaporization than either one alone. I think it's the other way round, though. Does anyone know offhand, if you mix a bunch of water and methanol, do they get hotter or colder? If they get colder, the heat of vap should be higher. Otherwise the addition of methanol is mainly as antifreeze. > Yippee. I understand more or less. A side benefit of doing this is that it > reduces NOx emmissions. Neat huh. Ok, now you're in for it. You came close enough to one of my pet ideas to trigger off another rant. Faint hearts, bail out now. ;) The main reason water inj reduces detonation is that the high heat of vap sucks up "excess" heat energy, and thus reduces the formation of various oxygen radical species. These radicals are essential for flame propagation, but if the mixture has a high enough energy density, it can cross over into detonation. Lowered combustion temps reduce the formation of O radicals. O radicals and NOx are intimately related, since the same conditions, lean mixtures and hot mixtures, favor the formation of both. In fact NOx are formed mainly through O radicals bumping into N2. When the mixture is rich, O radicals (and NOx) are more likely to "bump into" some fuel molecules, and keep the fire going. When there's lots of spare O2, heat and N2, lots of "leftover" O radicals end up bumping into N2, which then hangs around. Oppositely, rich mixtures tend to "sop up" O radicals more aggressively, which keeps the mixture burn rate from accelerating enough to detonate. Water vapor ("humidity") also slightly reduces detonation. IMO this is in part because water is a modest spin trap, and can convert some O radicals into slightly less reactive species. This has the effect of slowing combustion slightly, or rather, preventing it from making the 1000x speedup it would need to make to turn into detonation. It's no accident that many of your higher octane fuels (most things with an aryl group for instance) are decent spin traps as well. ... One of my pet ideas for when I hit the lottery is a *high* compression NA engine, with full ceramic coatings and almost full-time water injection, that runs slightly lean mixtures, on pump gas. And produces very low emissions even without a cat. The thinking went like: High compression - to get a higher efficency Ceramic coatings - ditto, plus keeping the fuel and water from boiling off in the intake ports. Water injection - above maybe 25% throttle, to prevent detonation and reduce NOx, which would otherwise be sky high. Lean mixture - to reduce CO and HC, which would be sent sky high by the water injection. High compression (+ coatings) would also help get the lean, wet mix hot enough to ignite reliably. Can all this be made to work? I dunno... comments welcomed. > If you were "whacky", you might consider adding steam after the throttle at > *** PART THROTTLE ***. This would greatly reduce the pumping work and > recover some waste heat. At less than wot, this would not cause a loss of Hmm I'll have to think about this. :) My idea has been focused on WOT power, not part throttle BSFC, but I'm not against upping BSFC if it doesn't hurt max power. Ok, it's way too late, as should be evident from the foregoing. Thank you all for your kind indulgence. Chris C. ------------------------------ From: Pedro Haynes Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 05:15:09 -0400 Subject: Re:making an adapter plate for tbi In getting power you need two things or maby more of one and less of another. These are time and money, if you have both you will be a winner. For the trottle boddies you can build you own. you can get an old carb and plug, saw of and do a little welding and you have a trottle body, all you need it the time. You can even do this with and old weber or mikuni, i have to check on the old SU in the yard. Next option, build one out of steel tube,,when this thought came in my head i thought, 'no one builds these things out of steel, then i asked my self why not? the butterflies will be a problem since they are not round and are slightly tiped at the edges. So you can get a tube which has an internal diameter of a carb from which you can get buterflies. Equipment is minimal We some how hate the sight if steel but lets face it i may work long enough to save for a "factory Trottle body" Or maby you can make a trottle body out of aluminium, This is more expensive to do, as you will neet access to a metal lathe and aluminium welding equipment. In any case the weber type carb will be the best way to go since manifolds are easy to obtain. And you may be able to get spare butterflies. Pedro >> also I need to find a machine shop to build an adapter plate for me for a gm >> throttle body to a two barrel Weber manifold. (it's not that bad). >> >> thanks, Ted. > >Ted, > If you are interested, TWM is offering SU-style throttle bodies with inectors >to mount on your original manifold....sure to give better performance than a >downdraft throttle body setup, but not cheap. Why not keep the SUs? My '72 ran >like the devil with them. > If you want to try another option, you can also do a weber DCOE pattern >throttle body with injectors on a sidedraft manifold. Big bucks again. > TWM is at twminduction.com , e-mail is twmindsb@xxx.com , phone (805) >967-9478. > As for your adapter, sounds like a local job, or DIY with some stock from >your local metal shop. Good luck with your 'B - I'd like to hear more about it. > >Aaron Willis > > > > > ------------------------------ From: Pedro Haynes Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 05:25:23 -0400 Subject: Re: WRC, was Flow rates for nozzles I know what you mean The american way of making power is by ci/cc. Check rallying, you will see how power is made, 600 bhp from 2000cc. To suggest we follow F1 was a bit stupid of me (I admit it) we should follow world rallying. So i have to cahnge my motto, if they use it in rallying then i will try it. Any one know about intale porting? I was suggested that the convex part of the port should be a bit on the rough side (when compared to the concave side) this creates eddy currents on the convex side and sorta (how do you say slig shot) the air into the chamber. Like how the space probe used the planets to gain momentum and change direction. Pedro >James Montebello wrote: > >> I'm stunned by the general lack of knowledge on this list about >> motorsports outside the US. :-) (Ozzies excluded, of course ;-). >> >> WRC is "World Rally Championship", a series that's run just >> about everywhere except the US. Races are run over several >> days in a series of point-to-point timed runs over dirt and >> gravel roads; sometimes muddy, sometimes snow-covered. The >> cars are typically Japanese and European "specials" built by >> the factory on production FWD & 4WD hatchback chassis. Once >> upon a time (a few years ago), in the days of Group B, there >> were 4WD cars with engines in strange places (lots of >> mid-engined cars that looked like plain FWD hatchbacks) running turbos, >> superchargers, or both (Lancia Delta). 500hp was a >> typical power figure. Now the top cars probably run about half >> that. Top speeds are low, so the engines are tuned for gobs of >> torque. The drivers in this series (mostly Finns, for some >> reason) are the best in the world for sheer car control, and >> every last one of them is utterly barking mad. >> >> >> > >Spraying the intercooler is a great idea IMO. Some WRC cars >> > come with I/C >> > >sprayers right from the factory, or used to. >> > >WRC is absolutely THE MOST entertaining motorsport available (barely >available) on TV! I also wish it were a factor in the U.S., but...at any >rate, it is simply fantastic driving. I would like to see more room in the >rules for things like Group B cars (Metro 6R4 fan, always rooting for the >underdog) in the future as I think it would add some much-needed color to a >fairly homogenous group of racing cars. > More to the point: Subaru use an IC water spray on their Impreza Turbo >models, including the 350bhp (er, I meant 280 brake, wink, nudge) 22B >homologation special. 350bhp from a 2.2 liter engine impresses the heck out >of locals like me, but if they are using it, either it works very well or >looks cool enough to impress buyers. > A bit of trivia is that Subaru mount their IC under a hood scoop instead >of in the front bumper, and perhaps the water spray is needed to counter >the lack of airflow fast the core. > Some ideas I have kicked around with others include a simple winshield >washer pump on a hobbs switch, spraying through standard windshield washer >nozzles across the IC core - many domestic cars have wide spray patterns >and could cover a good bit of area each - or the previously mentioned >boost-pressurized container. Nozzles from a garden (Hudson) sprayer also >produce a fine mist under little pressure. Food for thought. > >Aaron Willis >Redding, Ca USA > > > ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V3 #604 ***************************** To subscribe to DIY_EFI-Digest, send the command: subscribe diy_efi-digest in the body of a message to "Majordomo@xxx. A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace "diy_efi-digest" in the command above with "diy_efi".